Today they acted like a group of children who know they are going to be told off. Hiding, shuffling their feet, figuring out what the “right” answers are so they won’t get in trouble, and, most importantly, not narking on their mates.

Meanwhile, NZR (there’s no U anymore) gave a press conference (and released a statement) that feels so much like a research report you really didn’t want to do, but you made damn sure the bibliography was perfect.

In summary New Zealand Rugby has found that:

No complaint was laid with police and police are not pursuing either incident

The discrepancies between the reported accounts of both women, and those of the players and independent witnesses could not be reconciled in a number of key respects

The allegations of sexual assault, were strongly denied by players, and were not substantiated by the witnesses’ who did not see players touch, throw anything or pour alcohol on any women at either celebration

Nine independent witnesses to the performances were interviewed and gave statements that were considered genuine and credible

Players organised the end-of-season celebrations including the entertainment

Chiefs management were not involved in the celebrations or their planning and did not ask for details, but did advise players to be responsible

At both functions, some players were intoxicated to varying degrees, and some – designated as minders for those drinking – were sober

In summary of the summary: no one told us anything, the players backed each other up, so it didn’t happen.

But wait….!

…we are far from satisfied that players should not bear some culpability for the harm done to the game, to the Chiefs brand, and to their families

The whole incident has been incredibly disturbing and it is clear that poor decision making on a number of fronts has led to these players and Chiefs’ management putting themselves in a position of vulnerability.

So they did do something wrong. They hired a stripper. And for that they all get a “formal caution”. It’s unclear what that means exactly, or what would warrant another strike against that caution, or what the penalty would be?

It’s also unclear why simply hiring a stripper (a legal profession) is a problem. I assume they also bought alcohol, which seems like much more of a problem than a dancer. Much better people than me have written about the issue with the team hiring the stripper, I would like to instead focus on NZR.

Despite appearances NZR are not stupid. They know the reputation of the game was severely dented if not damaged. A censure of the entire team seems like an appropriate punishment to NZR. Something that sounds quite harsh, but really isn’t.

What they should’ve done is docked the Chiefs a point in next year’s Super Rugby. With the clear message that anything, even slightly out of line, will be met with the exact same punishment.

This meets all of the criteria of the current punishment – it punishes the whole team without singling out any players – with the bonus of actually doing something. One point may not sound like much until you realise that before the season even starts, you’re in last place.

There’s one other thing NZR needs to do: Lay down the law to every other team.

NZR/Chiefs in consultation with the NZRPA should look into the circumstances in which end-of-season celebrations take place (not only in the Chiefs region but in all professional environments) and develop a range of protocols to ensure that such celebrations are conducted appropriately and risk to reputations of players, employers and the game are minimised

Beyond the fact that this doesn’t mention risk to anyone other than players, employers and “the game”, it also feels weak. “We’ll develop a range of protocols” is not as bold as “we’ve got some protocols and here they are and if you don’t follow them then you lose points next season”.

For people in charge of a sport that gave us the term “sin bin”, they seem reluctant to set in place rules for conduct.

Do it, NZR. Come down hard. Put in place rules about domestic violence, assault, and sexual harassment. Get back all the fans you’ve lost and strengthen your ties to the ones you didn’t.

Because in New Zealand two things are at the top of the stats: rugby and domestic violence. This is NZR’s chance to start defeating one with the other.

(I have written to NZR to get clarification on the formal citation but so far the only response I had was “who do you write for?”, fair cop for taking such a long break I guess).

[Update: NZR got back to me and said the formal citation "goes on their record – so is counted if anything similar happens again". I have asked what 'similar' means]

32 responses to this post

Because in New Zealand two things are at the top of the stats: rugby and domestic violence. This is NZR’s chance to start defeating one with the other.

We will know that the wider New Zealand community is starting to treat domestic violence as serious crime when an All Blacks player, or a Super Whatever-Number-It-Is player, donates his man of the match award to Women's Refuge.

Kinda saddens me that she still has to talk about all the amazing non-stripping things strippers do, in the hope that more people might agree that stripping is a job people do. Perhaps if those people also agreed that playing sport is also a job people do, and they're all people too? Worshipping one set while denigrating the other doesn't help anyone.

Deborah, it'd possibly be more meaningful if after the next assault is reported the rest of the team gave their match fees to refuge. "we are not like him" is a powerful message. Can't bring myself to write "if there's...", it's when.

It maddens me that this seems to have been reduced to "they shouldn't have hired a stripper" and "how else would you expect them to behave". They should be able to hire a stripper, and treat them like a human being. I see nothing wrong with them hiring a stripper - I see a massive problem in their behaviour, and the infuriating "boys will be boys" attitude about it.

I see nothing wrong with them hiring a stripper – I see a massive problem in their behaviour, and the infuriating “boys will be boys” attitude about it.

They themselves are also hired entertainment. Ive heard Rugby called “the mongrel sport that gentlemen like to watch”.

There is also a bigger picture here, that’s bigger than the All Blacks donating things to Women’s refuge.

I am at present, the technition that's working on a sculpture for Womens refuge. The artist is being sponsored buy a spring making company in south Auckland. And we all take lots of things seriously. And I can say with confidence, none of the team give a fuck about what sort of PR stunts the All Blacks do. Like I say, there’s a bigger sociological picture than that, to stand back and see.

Is that actually true? All I've noticed reported directly, and in the press conference, is the word "unsubstantiated" or similar. To me there's a significant difference between "unsubstantiated" and "contradicted".

Is that actually true? All I’ve noticed reported directly, and in the press conference, is the word “unsubstantiated” or similar. To me there’s a significant difference between “unsubstantiated” and “contradicted”.

Yes, that distinction was made clear on Morning Report today. The whole thing reeks.

“the players have collectively accepted responsibility” – why? There are some big name players in the Chiefs who can, quite rightly, say they don’t want to be part of this. Sam Cane, Sonny Bill Williams, Brodie Retallick all now have a “black mark” on their records for something they didn’t do (I hope).

Good players suffer the consequences when bad players do something like this. And for some stupid “unwritten code” or other steaming pile of bullshit.

As with all matters of spin (political, corporate, etc), the "shut down, move on" tactic relies on public/media attention waning, and then the backlash ("bor-ing!"). It's morally stunted, but all too often it works.

“Collective responsibility” doesn’t mean they all actively participated – more that nobody in the room spoke out and stopped this.

Yah. It's the refined term for "we'll all band together and protect each other so they can't assume any of us were clearly responsible". But I suppose they're "officially" talking about the collective acceptance they all apparently had for the designated straw man of celebrating with strippers, and not about the activities that allegedly occurred when that was happening.

Many of the comments on this Stuff piece

That's a shame. Stuff really shouldn't be enabling comments on this sort of issue on its own website, unless it's going to be serious about moderation and fact-checking of what people write. If people want to have a pub discussion of unverified hearsay and opinion about sexual assault (allegations etc), they can easily go to the pub, or to facebook, or to any other random place on the internet. Better that than directly underneath a story from a media outlet to which masses of people look for reliable information.

Which was my point, too. There wouldn't be a need for after-the-fact "collective responsibility" PR (extending well beyond those present, which I think was your criticism of it?), or "not like us" messaging, if anyone had just sent a more timely "Don't be a dick" message in the moment.

Who were the “independent” witnesses who claimed that the stripper was not groped by Chiefs players? In what sense were they “independent”? Did they observe her the entire time? Why would a professional stripper tell stories about groping if it did not happen? She would have everything to lose by lying.

Consequently if NZR's lawyer didn't even interview her until after everyone else, it's hardly possible they could have quizzed other witnesses about all of the allegations. If it were not already obvious, NZR clearly set out for this to be a media damage control exercise, and not a genuine investigation.